The Big Picture: Scarlet Unity - What Assassin's Creed and Batman Have in Common

[V4Viewtiful]

I think it would be more accurate to say the first "Vigilante" Superhero, because you could argue, Heracles and/or Gilgamesh where the first. But as Bob said "All the Pieces" made Pimpernel the first, I suppose.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well it sounds more like she invented the masked vigilante than the superhero.

 

[Kameburger]

Always loved the 1982 movie. And if the new assassins creed is treading the same ground I'm in.

 

[ACman]

If only Ubisoft would be as self aware to deliberately put something as inherently goofy as 'The Scarlet Pimpernal' into their games.

And then you could also have elderly versions of 'The Three Musketeers', granted they would be 150 years old at that point but the Assassins Creed Universe is so dumb that it'd totally be okay.

But no... I'm sure that this will all be a twisted history lesson about Robspierre, The Reign of Terror, The Thermidorian Reaction and then Napoleon. If this game sells well we might even have a Napoleonic wars version with some sailing.

And if this game sells well we could probably meet other "interesting" characters that the -EnglishSpeakingWorldThatIsNotAmerica- already know about such as Lord Horatio Nelson, and His Grace, Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, KG GCB GCH PC FRS. Gripping.

We'll probably get to catch up with some of the characters from American Revolutionary history as well.... Woo.



Dear Ubisoft. Please do Japan/China/India.

 

[Rachith Sridhar]

For me the first superheroes are always going to be the characters from my old mythology books...........Scarlet Pimpernel sounds more like the first vigilante.
Anyways, always figured Assassin's creed would reach France some day. Ever since Ubisoft made it an yearly, never ending franchise, the American and French Revolution were bound to come. I expect it will move out of Europe sooner or later and start with Asian and African countries.

 

[Lyvric]

Just like bob mentions Robin hood, I don't think he means Scarlet was literally 'the first superhero'. Bob is just saying he's the first to fill in many/all of the stereotypical roles of superheroes now. Many heroes before him didn't carry multiple traits such as being rich/dressing up/swashbuckling combat/codenames/and so forth.

 

[Rachith Sridhar]

Just like bob mentions Robin hood, I don't think he means Scarlet was literally 'the first superhero'. Bob is just saying he's the first to fill in many/all of the stereotypical roles of superheroes now. Many heroes before him didn't carry multiple traits such as being rich/dressing up/swashbuckling combat/codenames/and so forth.

I get your point...but it is important to note the definition of a'superhero' changes from person to person.
Just as American kids grew up reading the exploits of the Dark Knight and our Friendly neighbourhood spidey, I grew up reading Ramayana, Mahabharata and Panchatantra. Those stories were built to teach Religious and Moral values true, but I remember reading them for fun and enjoyment...It is the same reason I picked up other religious texts and mythology books.

 

[O maestre]

I wouldn't stretch Scarlet Pimpernel as a father of superheroes, more likely pulp heroes and masked vigilantes.

Scarlet Pimpernel shares no DNA with Superman for example. I would put ancient Greek heroes and mythological creatures as better candidates for the superhero genre's ancestors.

 

[VonBrewskie]

That was a good one Bob! (I mean they all are, but this one was more heavy on the history. I like that!) Thanks for the background boss. Have a good one!

 

[VonBrewskie]

Bit dissapointed that this was a more shallow "rabbit hole" episode, but it was a bit interesting.

Unity will come out crap though, speaking as a fan, I can guarantee it.

Why do you say that? You of course realize there's no possible way you can guarantee something like that right? Maybe you should just stick with, "I don't have high hopes for the next game because..." I'd like to hear some good reasons from a fan of the series. Gives me leads to check out. Your fandom doesn't qualify you to make a statement like that and in fact, seems counter-intuitive to being a fan in the first place. You'd think fans of the series would at least be cautiously optimistic or something. What do you think?

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Bit dissapointed that this was a more shallow "rabbit hole" episode, but it was a bit interesting.

Unity will come out crap though, speaking as a fan, I can guarantee it.

Why do you say that? You of course realize there's no possible way you can guarantee something like that right? Maybe you should just stick with, "I don't have high hopes for the next game because..." I'd like to hear some good reasons from a fan of the series. Gives me leads to check out. Your fandom doesn't qualify you to make a statement like that and in fact, seems counter-intuitive to being a fan in the first place. You'd think fans of the series would at least be cautiously optimistic or something. What do you think?

I was being my generally tired self, but sure:

-Ever since III, the series has been pushing for more visual fidelity without properly optimising the game engine or resolving existing bugs(AC:Revelations still had the same visual glitches as AC:II). The series has essentially been turned into a series of tech demos, since the gameplay barely changes and more focus is given the the environment engine on AnvilNext which still isn't properly optimised.

-The games have barely shifted a bloody inch in terms of core gameplay: whilst IV did improve upon this with the naval combat, the traditional core of the game had not changed quite literally, at all, save for maybe the sleep darts and the lack of bow and arrow from III.

-Both III and IV screwed up their protagonists: III had a fairly dull and rather whiny protagonist right from the get-go, and whilst Edward Kenway at least had some charisma and flaws, towards the end, a very specific event happens which causes him to lose all personality, leaving him to once again, like those before him, to engage in boring moralising of templars.

-There are also considerably less things to do than in previous games, or at least, those activities have become more pointless: Brotherhood had faction missions, which all involved varying activities, Borgia towers, the assassin's guild, the renovation of Rome, the feathers, the catacombs, assassination missions, guild objectives, Lenoardo's War Machine missions and the standard viewpoints. In contrast, IV(which many consider to be better than III) has hunting, diving bell missions, Templar Key missions, legendary ships, treasure, songs, mayan puzzles, assassination missions and animus fragments in place of feathers, and standard viewpoints.

The problem is that the hunting, diving bell and treasure missions are for the sake of upgrading your equipment, and the templar key and mayan puzzle quests were for the sake of different costumes that didn't improve Kenway's ability in battle, or in any facet of gameplay: they were purely cosmetic, whereas Brotherhood's Armour of Brutus was the strongest armour you could get in the game, so there was a better reason for going out of your way to do the catacombs than in IV.

The legendary ships also don't really have a reason to exist besides giving the player a challenge and giving them more and more money, and the assassination missions have devolved to just "go there and kill the guy, don't get spotted", whereas Brotherhood asked you to perform the assassination in varying methods(never touch the ground or, kill whilst on horseback), but in IV nope: go there and kill the guy without being spotted. End of.

So whilst it may be cynical to expect Unity to be crap, the screenshots and the trailer give me a distinct AC:III vibe which I do not like at all(IV also had a III vibe, but it alternated with the gameplay often enough so that it was harder to notice). I can also expect that the game will do away with the moral ambiguity once templars are involved: the assassins will still be self-righteous "champions of freedom and justice" and templars will remain the uncomplicated bad guys who are angry that the assassins do not accept totalitarian order.

They might make both sides seem a bit off, but the revolution will still be more of a side story that the player character participates in from time to time, the story will still be centred around the assassins vs. the templars which at this point is boring as shit.

So that's why I can guarantee that Unity will be crap.

 

[rayen020]

I see this getting a lot of insufficient content warnings because watching this compelled me to say;

huh, interesting...

But i can't think of anything else to add to that.

 

[dubious_wolf]

dude what a badass concept.
thanks for the history lesson Bob. Maybe this one will get me back into this silly franchise.

 

[VonBrewskie]

Bit dissapointed that this was a more shallow "rabbit hole" episode, but it was a bit interesting.

Unity will come out crap though, speaking as a fan, I can guarantee it.

Why do you say that? You of course realize there's no possible way you can guarantee something like that right? Maybe you should just stick with, "I don't have high hopes for the next game because..." I'd like to hear some good reasons from a fan of the series. Gives me leads to check out. Your fandom doesn't qualify you to make a statement like that and in fact, seems counter-intuitive to being a fan in the first place. You'd think fans of the series would at least be cautiously optimistic or something. What do you think?

I was being my generally tired self, but sure:

-Ever since III, the series has been pushing for more visual fidelity without properly optimising the game engine or resolving existing bugs(AC:Revelations still had the same visual glitches as AC:II). The series has essentially been turned into a series of tech demos, since the gameplay barely changes and more focus is given the the environment engine on AnvilNext which still isn't properly optimised.

-The games have barely shifted a bloody inch in terms of core gameplay: whilst IV did improve upon this with the naval combat, the traditional core of the game had not changed quite literally, at all, save for maybe the sleep darts and the lack of bow and arrow from III.

-Both III and IV screwed up their protagonists: III had a fairly dull and rather whiny protagonist right from the get-go, and whilst Edward Kenway at least had some charisma and flaws, towards the end, a very specific event happens which causes him to lose all personality, leaving him to once again, like those before him, to engage in boring moralising of templars.

-There are also considerably less things to do than in previous games, or at least, those activities have become more pointless: Brotherhood had faction missions, which all involved varying activities, Borgia towers, the assassin's guild, the renovation of Rome, the feathers, the catacombs, assassination missions, guild objectives, Lenoardo's War Machine missions and the standard viewpoints. In contrast, IV(which many consider to be better than III) has hunting, diving bell missions, Templar Key missions, legendary ships, treasure, songs, mayan puzzles, assassination missions and animus fragments in place of feathers, and standard viewpoints.

The problem is that the hunting, diving bell and treasure missions are for the sake of upgrading your equipment, and the templar key and mayan puzzle quests were for the sake of different costumes that didn't improve Kenway's ability in battle, or in any facet of gameplay: they were purely cosmetic, whereas Brotherhood's Armour of Brutus was the strongest armour you could get in the game, so there was a better reason for going out of your way to do the catacombs than in IV.

The legendary ships also don't really have a reason to exist besides giving the player a challenge and giving them more and more money, and the assassination missions have devolved to just "go there and kill the guy, don't get spotted", whereas Brotherhood asked you to perform the assassination in varying methods(never touch the ground or, kill whilst on horseback), but in IV nope: go there and kill the guy without being spotted. End of.

So whilst it may be cynical to expect Unity to be crap, the screenshots and the trailer give me a distinct AC:III vibe which I do not like at all(IV also had a III vibe, but it alternated with the gameplay often enough so that it was harder to notice). I can also expect that the game will do away with the moral ambiguity once templars are involved: the assassins will still be self-righteous "champions of freedom and justice" and templars will remain the uncomplicated bad guys who are angry that the assassins do not accept totalitarian order.

They might make both sides seem a bit off, but the revolution will still be more of a side story that the player character participates in from time to time, the story will still be centred around the assassins vs. the templars which at this point is boring as shit.

So that's why I can guarantee that Unity will be crap.

Hey thank you! That's an interesting perspective. I still think it's a bit early to call it crap and still don't believe you can guarantee it will be, (I mean come on man be reasonable. There's not even any game play footage out yet), but I definitely agree with you that the combat is getting a bit stale and the game needs to try some new mechanics.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Bit dissapointed that this was a more shallow "rabbit hole" episode, but it was a bit interesting.

Unity will come out crap though, speaking as a fan, I can guarantee it.

Why do you say that? You of course realize there's no possible way you can guarantee something like that right? Maybe you should just stick with, "I don't have high hopes for the next game because..." I'd like to hear some good reasons from a fan of the series. Gives me leads to check out. Your fandom doesn't qualify you to make a statement like that and in fact, seems counter-intuitive to being a fan in the first place. You'd think fans of the series would at least be cautiously optimistic or something. What do you think?

I was being my generally tired self, but sure:

-Ever since III, the series has been pushing for more visual fidelity without properly optimising the game engine or resolving existing bugs(AC:Revelations still had the same visual glitches as AC:II). The series has essentially been turned into a series of tech demos, since the gameplay barely changes and more focus is given the the environment engine on AnvilNext which still isn't properly optimised.

-The games have barely shifted a bloody inch in terms of core gameplay: whilst IV did improve upon this with the naval combat, the traditional core of the game had not changed quite literally, at all, save for maybe the sleep darts and the lack of bow and arrow from III.

-Both III and IV screwed up their protagonists: III had a fairly dull and rather whiny protagonist right from the get-go, and whilst Edward Kenway at least had some charisma and flaws, towards the end, a very specific event happens which causes him to lose all personality, leaving him to once again, like those before him, to engage in boring moralising of templars.

-There are also considerably less things to do than in previous games, or at least, those activities have become more pointless: Brotherhood had faction missions, which all involved varying activities, Borgia towers, the assassin's guild, the renovation of Rome, the feathers, the catacombs, assassination missions, guild objectives, Lenoardo's War Machine missions and the standard viewpoints. In contrast, IV(which many consider to be better than III) has hunting, diving bell missions, Templar Key missions, legendary ships, treasure, songs, mayan puzzles, assassination missions and animus fragments in place of feathers, and standard viewpoints.

The problem is that the hunting, diving bell and treasure missions are for the sake of upgrading your equipment, and the templar key and mayan puzzle quests were for the sake of different costumes that didn't improve Kenway's ability in battle, or in any facet of gameplay: they were purely cosmetic, whereas Brotherhood's Armour of Brutus was the strongest armour you could get in the game, so there was a better reason for going out of your way to do the catacombs than in IV.

The legendary ships also don't really have a reason to exist besides giving the player a challenge and giving them more and more money, and the assassination missions have devolved to just "go there and kill the guy, don't get spotted", whereas Brotherhood asked you to perform the assassination in varying methods(never touch the ground or, kill whilst on horseback), but in IV nope: go there and kill the guy without being spotted. End of.

So whilst it may be cynical to expect Unity to be crap, the screenshots and the trailer give me a distinct AC:III vibe which I do not like at all(IV also had a III vibe, but it alternated with the gameplay often enough so that it was harder to notice). I can also expect that the game will do away with the moral ambiguity once templars are involved: the assassins will still be self-righteous "champions of freedom and justice" and templars will remain the uncomplicated bad guys who are angry that the assassins do not accept totalitarian order.

They might make both sides seem a bit off, but the revolution will still be more of a side story that the player character participates in from time to time, the story will still be centred around the assassins vs. the templars which at this point is boring as shit.

So that's why I can guarantee that Unity will be crap.

Hey thank you! That's an interesting perspective. I still think it's a bit early to call it crap and still don't believe you can guarantee it will be, (I mean come on man be reasonable. There's not even any game play footage out yet), but I definitely agree with you that the combat is getting a bit stale and the game needs to try some new mechanics.

I guess I did jump the gun a little, but like I suggested, I have lost trust in Ubisoft over time.

 

[VonBrewskie]

Bit dissapointed that this was a more shallow "rabbit hole" episode, but it was a bit interesting.

Unity will come out crap though, speaking as a fan, I can guarantee it.

Why do you say that? You of course realize there's no possible way you can guarantee something like that right? Maybe you should just stick with, "I don't have high hopes for the next game because..." I'd like to hear some good reasons from a fan of the series. Gives me leads to check out. Your fandom doesn't qualify you to make a statement like that and in fact, seems counter-intuitive to being a fan in the first place. You'd think fans of the series would at least be cautiously optimistic or something. What do you think?

I was being my generally tired self, but sure:

-Ever since III, the series has been pushing for more visual fidelity without properly optimising the game engine or resolving existing bugs(AC:Revelations still had the same visual glitches as AC:II). The series has essentially been turned into a series of tech demos, since the gameplay barely changes and more focus is given the the environment engine on AnvilNext which still isn't properly optimised.

-The games have barely shifted a bloody inch in terms of core gameplay: whilst IV did improve upon this with the naval combat, the traditional core of the game had not changed quite literally, at all, save for maybe the sleep darts and the lack of bow and arrow from III.

-Both III and IV screwed up their protagonists: III had a fairly dull and rather whiny protagonist right from the get-go, and whilst Edward Kenway at least had some charisma and flaws, towards the end, a very specific event happens which causes him to lose all personality, leaving him to once again, like those before him, to engage in boring moralising of templars.

-There are also considerably less things to do than in previous games, or at least, those activities have become more pointless: Brotherhood had faction missions, which all involved varying activities, Borgia towers, the assassin's guild, the renovation of Rome, the feathers, the catacombs, assassination missions, guild objectives, Lenoardo's War Machine missions and the standard viewpoints. In contrast, IV(which many consider to be better than III) has hunting, diving bell missions, Templar Key missions, legendary ships, treasure, songs, mayan puzzles, assassination missions and animus fragments in place of feathers, and standard viewpoints.

The problem is that the hunting, diving bell and treasure missions are for the sake of upgrading your equipment, and the templar key and mayan puzzle quests were for the sake of different costumes that didn't improve Kenway's ability in battle, or in any facet of gameplay: they were purely cosmetic, whereas Brotherhood's Armour of Brutus was the strongest armour you could get in the game, so there was a better reason for going out of your way to do the catacombs than in IV.

The legendary ships also don't really have a reason to exist besides giving the player a challenge and giving them more and more money, and the assassination missions have devolved to just "go there and kill the guy, don't get spotted", whereas Brotherhood asked you to perform the assassination in varying methods(never touch the ground or, kill whilst on horseback), but in IV nope: go there and kill the guy without being spotted. End of.

So whilst it may be cynical to expect Unity to be crap, the screenshots and the trailer give me a distinct AC:III vibe which I do not like at all(IV also had a III vibe, but it alternated with the gameplay often enough so that it was harder to notice). I can also expect that the game will do away with the moral ambiguity once templars are involved: the assassins will still be self-righteous "champions of freedom and justice" and templars will remain the uncomplicated bad guys who are angry that the assassins do not accept totalitarian order.

They might make both sides seem a bit off, but the revolution will still be more of a side story that the player character participates in from time to time, the story will still be centred around the assassins vs. the templars which at this point is boring as shit.

So that's why I can guarantee that Unity will be crap.

Hey thank you! That's an interesting perspective. I still think it's a bit early to call it crap and still don't believe you can guarantee it will be, (I mean come on man be reasonable. There's not even any game play footage out yet), but I definitely agree with you that the combat is getting a bit stale and the game needs to try some new mechanics.

I guess I did jump the gun a little, but like I suggested, I have lost trust in Ubisoft over time.

Ah that's fair man. You seem to be a very big fan of the series so I can see why you'd be wary. I've definitely been there myself with certain series *cough* *cough* Battlefield 4 *cough* *cough*

 

[lukesparow]

My eyes just opened to the world!
Thank you very much for this, it was truly interesting.